SteveFish

Yor_on. I will give this one more try. Please provide a definition of free will that will allow us to evaluate it in light of your notions regarding causality. Even more important, how would your definition of free will differentiate between a person making a decision and a complex computer program making a decision? Steve

Logged

SteveFish

Joe. I am willing to accept your definition if you will admit that this also means that my dog and the giant banana slug I just moved off the porch also have free will. If you don't agree, what is the difference. Steve

Look up my references Steve, then I hope you will see why I see it like I do. There are more things to it of course, but ain't it that way always? But they are a good staring point for what 'free will' might be. If you accept the basic premises I do. That we too, are a part of a physical system called 'SpaceTime'.

thx, i see betteri know that our doll is within another doll and the number of dolls can be infinity but i guess that not only our world is determinedthe designer in the upper level should be determined as wellhis world has rules as well

As for what differ a program with multiple choices and a human being?Depends on how many choices that human sees, don't it?The difference have to be in my question here :)

That is if you don't construct a quantum computer, or a analogue one with an infinity of possible 'choices', and also it seems to be a thing of 'magnifying/contracting' what 'reality' we look on as QM also seems to leave choices open, but hinged in by 'probability'.

So it becomes a very philosophical question if you want to narrow it down. I'm not trying to, I just look at what I think is significant for my understanding of 'SpaceTime' and when it comes to 'free will' I have this definition.

Well Sliffy, that depends on your own definition of what the world ultimately should be seen as. My view is that the world probably is a whole thing, and if we could see it that way the question about free will will become meaningless on that plane. But I don't expect any arrow to exist there either. The question of a 'free will' is meaningful only under our arrow as I see it.

you write: "free will will become meaningless on that plane"... >> why it is meaningless? do you agree that free will doesn't exist if our system is closed?i can't imagine a closed system working by rules to be non-determined

Logged

SteveFish

Yor_on. What references are you referring to? Are you unwilling to give your own definition of free will? I don't accept your basic premises because you haven't actually laid them out in a logical manner. Do you actually think that the number of choices available to a person, or computer, is what defines free will? If you know what you think free will is, just define it. Steve

Look Steve, I can see you want a ah, 'discussion' about it. I'm not interested, simple as that. I do not have the answer to the universe although I have my own opinions. The references was 'bifurcations' and then the 'Feigenbaum constant'.

And Sliffy, the 'thingie' that i expect to be 'whole' is not what we call SpaceTime. It's ? Well, it have to include the virtual aspects as well as what we see as those 'Russian dolls'. It's not anything I know how to specify, as there most probably will be more to it than what I can see. And our 'SpaceTime' and the the 'arrow' created by that I see as a consequence of it, with us infused with all that 'virtuality' etc. We 'exist' on many planes simultaneously if you look at it like that, the 'virtual world' being inside each one of us. So? My view that is :)

Joe. I am willing to accept your definition if you will admit that this also means that my dog and the giant banana slug I just moved off the porch also have free will. If you don't agree, what is the difference. Steve

Hi, Steve. I agree that your dog and your slog have free will within their limitations. You are one of their limitations. Thanks for comments

SteveFish

Joe, I am OK with such a loose definition, but I have one complaint. It was a banana slug, quite beautiful. I greatly expanded his/her free will for the future which would have been cut short by being stepped on. Steve

Joe, I am OK with such a loose definition, but I have one complaint. It was a banana slug, quite beautiful. I greatly expanded his/her free will for the future which would have been cut short by being stepped on. Steve

Hi, Steve. Yes, I forgot to state that you are one of their assets also. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan

in my definition: i would have free will if my decision wouldn't be calculable but i see my decisions calculable so i think that my will isn't free

I don't think they are calculable. I certainly cannot anticipate your future actions, and I doubt that you can either. Any calculation will result in an infinite number of possible actions, so we already know the answer before we do any calculation.

i didn't say that you, me or the designer can calculate the future... "calculable" doesn't mean that anybody has the capability to calculatecalculable means that our system works by rules so it's condition in the future is determined- do you understand now what i mean?- do you still say that our universe's future is non-determined?if yes, please explain why?

It's perfectly possible that everything is "determined", but that's not the same as "predictable".

The behaviour of the human brain may be determined by the physics/biochemistry/etc of its existing state, but even leaving out any other kind of consideration, ionising radiation, has the potential to alter the chemistry of the DNA and other reactions and thus, ultimately, alter behaviour. So although free will may be illusory, it's still impossible to calculate behaviour (even if it were possible to compile a complete model of the state of the brain at a partcicular instant, which it wouldn't be).

i agree... :)that's all i wanted to say... i don't say that you can predict the future... tis topic is not about thati just say that if everything is determined than you have no free willyou are a robot

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.